Anchoring effect

Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgement, Thinking and Memory

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 223-241

  Bahník, Štepán ^a   Englich, Birte ^b   Strack, Fritz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84975504705     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315696935     Document Type: Chapter

References (67)

1. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73-105.
2. Bahník, Š., & Strack, F. (2016). Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 92-98.
3. Biswas, A., & Burton, S. (1993). Consumer perceptions of tensile price claims in advertisements: An assessment of claim types across different discount levels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 217-229.
4. Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1465-1476.
5. Bodenhausen, G. V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). Sadness and the susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11, 320-323.
6. Brewer, N. T., & Chapman, G. B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65-77.
7. Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
8. Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519-540.
9. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242.
10. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1-39.
11. Cheek, N. N., Coe-Odess, S., & Schwartz, B. (2015). What have I just done? Anchoring, selfknowledge, and judgments of recent behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 76-85.
12. Chernev, A. (2011). Semantic anchoring in sequential evaluations of vices and virtues. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 761-774.
13. Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241-251.
14. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
15. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court - A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705-722.
16. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188-200.
17. Englich, B., & Soder, K. (2009). Moody experts - How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 41-50.
18. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
19. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 199-212.
20. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311-318.
21. Frederick, S. W., & Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 124-133.
22. Frederick, S., Mochon, D., & Savary, J. (2014). The role of inference in anchoring effects (Working paper). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
23. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35-42.
24. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspectivetaking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657-669.
25. Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222.
26. Glöckner, A., & Englich, B. (2015). When relevance matters: Anchoring effects can be larger for relevant than for irrelevant anchors. Social Psychology, 46, 4-12.
27. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
28. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff ‘s requests and plaintiff ‘s identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-470.
29. Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327.
30. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: The Guilford Press.
31. Hinsz, V. B., & Indahl, K. E. (1995). Assimilation to anchors for damage awards in a mock civil trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 991-1026.
32. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
33. Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychological Science, 19, 121-127.
34. Jung, M. H., Perfecto, H., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Anchoring in payment: Evaluating a judgmental heuristic in field experimental settings. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2442153 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2442153.
35. Keysar, B., & Barr, D. J. (2002). Self-anchoring in conversation: Why language users don’t do what they “should”. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 150-166). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
37. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., Nosek, B. A. (2014). Theory building through replication: Response to commentaries on the “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 307-310.
38. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversal of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46-55.
39. Loschelder, D. D., Stuppi, J., & Trötschel, R. (2014). "14,875?!": Precision boosts the anchoring potency of first offers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 491-499.
40. Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491-497.
41. Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal-injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 91-103.
42. Mochon, D., & Frederick, S. (2013). Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 69-79.
43. Mussweiler, T. (2001). The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 431-442.
44. Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133-143.
45. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999a). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
46. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999b). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 135-167). Chichester, England: Wiley.
47. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000a). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038-1052.
48. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000b). Numeric judgment under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 495-518.
49. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 234-255.
50. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150.
51. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading of activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 226-254.
52. Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Prime numbers: Anchoring and its implications for theories of behavior priming. Social Cognition, 32, 88-108.
53. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84-97.
54. Oppenheimer, D. M., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Brewer, N. T. (2008). Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition, 106, 13-26.
55. Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: The effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67-91.
56. Quattrone, G. A., Lawrence, C. P., Warren, D. L., Souza-Silva, K., Finkel, S. E., & Andrus, D. E. (1984). Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints. Unpublished manuscript.
57. Reitsma-van Rooijen, M., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2006). Subliminal anchoring: The effects of subliminally presented numbers on probability estimates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 380-387.
58. Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123-162). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
59. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385-407). New York: Guilford.
60. Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 917-932.
61. Strack, F. (1992). The different routes to social judgments: Experiential versus informational strategies. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgment (pp. 249-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
63. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
64. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 5-16.
65. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387-402.
66. Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 314-333.
67. Zhang, Y. C., & Schwarz, N. (2013). The power of precise numbers: A conversational logic analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 944-946.